Also, as above, it depends on how old she is as to what you mean by GD as, unless scored through a statutory assessment, it's teacher judgement.
Some schools will list the children at the top of the class as their 'greater depth children', simply because they're achieving higher than their peers. Compared to their same age peers across the country, they may be distinctly average. Likewise a child judged as working at age related expectations in one school could be 'better' at that subject than a child at a different school who is considered to be greater depth. It can be quite subjective.
I'm Early Years, but when we go to moderation we can debate at length whether a piece of writing is 'expected' or not, with many feeling it's not but other people arguing why they believe it is. It can be infuriating how differently some professionals interpret the guidance, despite having the same training.
It also depends how different schools approach their data. It's not unusual for some to massage the facts to bump children up in year groups where it is simply down to teacher judgement, whereas others will be more realistic. My personal experience is that schools in deprived areas are more likely to accept their data for what it is, knowing they can justify it, whereas there is more pressure for good data in leafy suburbs and villages, so there's more pressure to tweak the data accordingly for those cuspy children who are just on the verge of expected. Personally, I'd rather be honest to ensure they get more support (which they clearly still need) in Year 1. It was a huge reason why I chose to leave my last school as the pressure to put children through as expected, who simply weren't, was too much.